Protestant Council to Determine Canonicity

[Peter_J]

Wild thread you’ve got here. Really … groovy.

Recently I was reading about the various councils (Trent, Carthage, etc.) that determined the Christian canon, and it occurred to me that I could find no material on Protestant councils.

I’m quite certain that no councils of the early church called themselves “protestant”. I imagine you could find some protestants (though not very many I’m sure) who retro-actively label some early church councils as “protestant”.

Of course, Trent wasn’t exactly an early church council …

 

[Peter_J]

I find it amusing that the argument as turned to a Caltholic VS LCMS debate given that of all the English speaking “protestants” the LCMS is probably the most open to going back to Luther’s complete bible.

…

On a side note, don’t Eastern Catholics bibles have more books than Latin Catholics? As I understand it The Prayer of Manasseh is used in the Byzantine Catholic service of Great Compline.

If so… than given that Luther’s Bible included the Prayer of Manasseh, will we see Latin Catholics include it too in deference to their Eastern Catholic brothers in Christ?

If so, would we Lutherans then be wise enough to not show too much gloating?

I’d need to do some checking to answer this with confidence, but I believe that some, not all, Eastern Catholics bibles have more books.

 

[MaryT777]

This is very true. In fact, the LCMS has a dedicated Study Bible version of the Deuterocanonical books (I refuse to use the “A” word , lol).

You know what they say thou… you fight the most with those most similar to you

“A” Word. LOL…

 

[steido01]

You know what they say thou… you fight the most with those most similar to you

Ain’t it the truth?

---

Yes, and I think this makes the point clear. Prior to Trent, all Catholics could question the disputed books. After Trent, they could not.

This was the point I was trying to make earlier, when I said that the “official” Lutheran view of the canon was essentially the pre-Tridentine Catholic view (where individuals are free to question the disputed books, but certainly not the homolegomena). Using Trent as ex post facto ‘proof’ that the canon always was solidly accepted denies what history tells us and reduces the contributions of wonderful Catholic minds like Eusebius, Jerome, Cajetan and Erasmus. Pre-Trent was different from post-Trent.

Personally, I find it it sad that some modern Lutherans, particularly in America, have de facto accepted the protestant 66-book version and lost a useful knowledge of the Apocrypha (IMO, because of anti-Catholic, Reformed influences… but that’s another thread). But this practice is irrelevant because, as we’ve mentioned, “the number of books in the canon” is not a point of contention to Lutherans.

 

[JonNC]

Jon:
Of course you view things through Lutheran glasses;
that is my main point.
We have many willing to dialogue with us and I did not mean to compare your negatively to the SDA sorry of that was offensive.
Just they speak a lot of Catholic history and how the Church did this or that historically which reminds me of the LCMS posters but it’s off topic for this thread.
I apologize.

Mary.

No apology needed, Mary. I do enjoy very much when we get together. I find your posts thought-provoking and informative.
Here’s a couple of thoughts I ask you to consider:

1. notice none of the Lutherans here in this dialogue referenced scripture. IOW, we are willing to discuss an important issue such as this from the foundation of Tradition, in part because we recognize the role the Church plays and played in the development of the canon. So, we reference the same councils and Church history that you do, even if our take on it is different. Consider if you will, whether folks from other communions would dialogue this issue in this way. I’m sure our Anglican friends would, but can you think of others?
2. perhaps more than an other communion, Lutherans of all synods are open to the importance of the deuterocanon. We recognize the important role the play in understanding the history of the Church. Now here in America, that openness has been late in coming, but it is coming. And that lateness has hurt no one but American Lutherans. Steido and Ben will I think join me in that conclusion. So, be patient with us Lutherans, as we reclaim some of that lost catholicity that some of our European brethren have not lost.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I deleted that post.

I promise you, Mary, we are listening.

Jon

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

Yes, and I think this makes the point clear. Prior to Trent, all Catholics could question the disputed books. After Trent, they could not.

Jon

To me, this points to an authority in the Catholic Church, and it brings to mind an expression I have heard Peter Kreeft mention before - “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.”

With that in mind – how are disputes settled in the Lutheran church, or other protestant churches? Or are they simply always in dispute and/or open to examination? More specifically, are Lutherans free to accept (or not) the Revelation of Peter or the Gnostic Gospels as inspired?

Thank you for the discussion.

 

[markone]

No apology needed, Mary. I do enjoy very much when we get together. I find your posts thought-provoking and informative.
Here’s a couple of thoughts I ask you to consider:

1. notice none of the Lutherans here in this dialogue referenced scripture. IOW, we are willing to discuss an important issue such as this from the foundation of Tradition, in part because we recognize the role the Church plays and played in the development of the canon. So, we reference the same councils and Church history that you do, even if our take on it is different. Consider if you will, whether folks from other communions would dialogue this issue in this way. I’m sure our Anglican friends would, but can you think of others?
2. perhaps more than an other communion, Lutherans of all synods are open to the importance of the deuterocanon. We recognize the important role the play in understanding the history of the Church. Now here in America, that openness has been late in coming, but it is coming. And that lateness has hurt no one but American Lutherans. Steido and Ben will I think join me in that conclusion. So, be patient with us Lutherans, as we reclaim some of that lost catholicity that some of our European brethren have not lost.

Jon

hello thanks–
what made this thread interesting is the difference religious groups have in expressing their religious belief in Jesus as the son of God and his commands that he said his follower’s would obey.
As well as the signs that will follow his deciples and follower’s.

Saint Paul said there would be a form of religious activity – but lacking the power of the Holy Spirit…

and that this was the tie breaker–

where as Luthern’s don’t have a lot of “Healings” in their Mass, and Roman Catholics don’t have a lot of “healings” in their Mass.

and yes the counsal of trent-- closed the door on everything–

so these theology discussions are really kind of point less–

lowered expectations

youtu.be/VRcj9WbHLjk

 

[JonNC]

=SextusEmpiricus;10881042]To me, this points to an authority in the Catholic Church, and it brings to mind an expression I have heard Peter Kreeft mention before - “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.”

But not everyone is (currently) in communion with Rome. So while the phrase is clever, it certainly doesn’t answer your OP. i would agree, however, about the importance of authority in these matters.

With that in mind – how are disputes settled in the Lutheran church, or other protestant churches? Or are they simply always in dispute and/or open to examination? More specifically, are Lutherans free to accept (or not) the Revelation of Peter or the Gnostic Gospels as inspired?

It is important to keep in mind that, while on the one hand, the Lutheran confessions do not “close” the canon, on the other hand Lutherans are western Christians. To my knowledge, no where in the western church have the Gnostic Gospels been considered anything but rejected. Books that have been historically rejected in the west are rejected by Lutherans.
Protestant groups will need to respond for themselves, but for the most part, I think it is relatively safe to say that most accept a 66 book canon.

Thank you for the discussion.

Sure.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

hello thanks–
what made this thread interesting is the difference religious groups have in expressing their religious belief in Jesus as the son of God and his commands that he said his follower’s would obey.
As well as the signs that will follow his deciples and follower’s.

Saint Paul said there would be a form of religious activity – but lacking the power of the Holy Spirit…

and that this was the tie breaker–

where as Luthern’s don’t have a lot of “Healings” in their Mass, and Roman Catholics don’t have a lot of “healings” in their Mass.

and yes the counsal of trent-- closed the door on everything–

so these theology discussions are really kind of point less–

lowered expectations

youtu.be/VRcj9WbHLjk

Well, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, and welcome to CAF.

Jon

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

But not everyone is (currently) in communion with Rome. So while the phrase is clever, it certainly doesn’t answer your OP. i would agree, however, about the importance of authority in these matters.

It is important to keep in mind that, while on the one hand, the Lutheran confessions do not “close” the canon, on the other hand Lutherans are western Christians. To my knowledge, no where in the western church have the Gnostic Gospels been considered anything but rejected. Books that have been historically rejected in the west are rejected by Lutherans.
Protestant groups will need to respond for themselves, but for the most part, I think it is relatively safe to say that most accept a 66 book canon.

Sure.

Jon

Thank you Jon.

I understand not everyone is in communion with Rome, but I think it does show the value of authority. What I am still not getting is - how does a protestant (whether Lutheran, or Pentecostal, or whatever) decide whether or not the Letters of Clement are inspired? Perhaps we can draw upon your experience as a Lutheran, though I realize you do not represent all Lutherans (much less all Protestants). Did you determine for yourself that it was not inspired? Or did the Lutheran church simply say “Jon, don’t worry about the Letters of Clement, we have already determined they are not inspired” ? In which case, you have accepted the Lutheran church’s authority on the matter.

And the obvious follow up question would be - how did the Lutheran church, which told you the Letters of Clement were not inspired, make that determination?

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, and I think this makes the point clear. Prior to Trent, all Catholics could question the disputed books. After Trent, they could not.

Jon

Blessings Jon! I am sorry,but questioning the disputed books does not change the fact,those books were included in the OT canon long before Trent and the reformation. People questioned the Trinitarian doctrine after it was ratified. Questioning it does not take anything away from its validity.

 

[Nicea325]

I find this assertion curious, given that the council of Trent was ‘voted’ on - I would find it really surprising to find that any deliberative body would need to vote mere broadcasting of ideas that everyone already agrees to.

Not at all. The council in essence had to make it very clear to the protesters of the time. It is no different when a supervisor who verbally warns his or her subordinate and refuses to listen. The next step? Make it clear by writing it. The fact they voted does not mean the canon was open and later closed. Remember, the Protestants were the one’s who pushed the council to proclaim what they had to proclaim. As I said, nothing was added or taken from the previous OT canon.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It is important to keep in mind that, while on the one hand, the Lutheran confessions do not “close” the canon, on the other hand Lutherans are western Christians. To my knowledge, no where in the western church have the Gnostic Gospels been considered anything but rejected. Books that have been historically rejected in the west are rejected by Lutherans.
Protestant groups will need to respond for themselves, but for the most part, I think it is relatively safe to say that most accept a 66 book canon.

Jon

From all my LCMS readings I never noticed that the Confessions did not consider the canon closed…

Well, you learn something new every day! lol

Thanks Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Blessings Jon! I am sorry,but questioning the disputed books does not change the fact,those books were included in the OT canon long before Trent and the reformation. People questioned the Trinitarian doctrine after it was ratified. Questioning it does not take anything away from its validity.

That sums of the Catholic position well in my opinion Nice post.
Mary.

 

[JonNC]

Thank you Jon.

I understand not everyone is in communion with Rome, but I think it does show the value of authority. What I am still not getting is - how does a protestant (whether Lutheran, or Pentecostal, or whatever) decide whether or not the Letters of Clement are inspired? Perhaps we can draw upon your experience as a Lutheran, though I realize you do not represent all Lutherans (much less all Protestants). Did you determine for yourself that it was not inspired? Or did the Lutheran church simply say “Jon, don’t worry about the Letters of Clement, we have already determined they are not inspired” ? In which case, you have accepted the Lutheran church’s authority on the matter.

And the obvious follow up question would be - how did the Lutheran church, which told you the Letters of Clement were not inspired, make that determination?

When it comes to doctrine, no Lutheran determines these things for themselves. Lutherans are bound to the Lutheran confessions. Again, none of the books considered rejected by the historic western Church are received by us in any other way. and yes, I do accept the authority of my communion in these matters. Just remember, the Lutheran Church does not consider these things in a vacuum, but instead we look back to the historic Church, which which we consider ourselves a part.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

From all my LCMS readings I never noticed that the Confessions did not consider the canon closed…

Well, you learn something new every day! lol

Thanks Jon

The Confessions do not close them. For all intent and purposes, it is, however. We won’t use the dueterocanon in the same way we use the universally attested books.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Blessings Jon! I am sorry,but questioning the disputed books does not change the fact,those books were included in the OT canon long before Trent and the reformation. People questioned the Trinitarian doctrine after it was ratified. Questioning it does not take anything away from its validity.

If the questioning came from the early Church, it is something we should consider as to how we use them.

Jon

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

When it comes to doctrine, no Lutheran determines these things for themselves. Lutherans are bound to the Lutheran confessions. Again, none of the books considered rejected by the historic western Church are received by us in any other way. and yes, I do accept the authority of my communion in these matters. Just remember, the Lutheran Church does not consider these things in a vacuum, but instead we look back to the historic Church, which which we consider ourselves a part.

Jon

Thanks Jon, I appreciate your patience with me.

With regard to authority to determine the canon, it seems the Catholic Church makes the claim that her authority comes from God (Catholics - please correct me if I have misunderstood). Does the Lutheran church make the same claim when making the determination that the deuterocanonical books are not inspired? In other words, to borrow a phrase, “Luther has spoken, the matter is settled”?

 

[Nicea325]

If the questioning came from the early Church, it is something we should consider as to how we use them.

Jon

Oh by all means, I understand what you mean. Not trying to be disrespectful any shape or form.